Why should signs warning of red-light cameras be posted?

A sign warns of a red-light camera at an intersection on Route 184 in Woodbridge Township, N.J. Warning signs are not required in New York but some think they should be.Staten Island Advance photo

The concept is fairly straightforward: Stop on the red light; go on the green. And it worked pretty well for decades in lieu of traffic cops to regulate traffic flow through busy intersections.

But then, sometime in the 1970s or thereabouts, the simple system that had worked so well for so long began to break down. More and more drivers began darting through traffic signals after they changed red. Some slipped through when traffic was light and no one was looking.

More aggressive drivers started blowing through steady red lights, often blowing their horns to warn cross traffic away.

The whole phenomenon snowballed to the point where it was not uncommon to see five or 10 cars glide through the red light after the signal changed. And frustrated drivers who have the green light on the cross street but who got stuck because of the red-light runners tended to think they were entitled to do the same thing. Hello, gridlock.

The epidemic was such that, short of red-light violations being witnessed by police first hand and the violators ticketed on the spot, traffic signals were devalued. Too many people seemed to feel that stopping at red signals was optional if they were in a hurry or had a long day or it was late at night. If you could get away with it, by all means, run the light, or so the thinking seemed to go.

Municipalities obviously couldn't afford to station a police officer at every traffic signal, or even many of them. So they resorted the next best thing: Motion-activated cameras that, when triggered, take photographs of the license plates of vehicles that go through red lights. Violators are subsequently mailed summonses that include a copy of the photo of their violation.

The advent of red-light cameras has undeniably led to a decrease in the number of those often-horrific T-bone intersection crashes. On the other hand, there is evidence to suggest that they induce drivers approaching a light that's about to change to speed up or jam on the brakes. That can lead to rear-end crashes.

And there is no doubt that New York City, which deploys 150 active red-light cameras at intersections with traffic signals and wants to deploy more, relishes the fine revenue the cameras produce. There have even been charges that the lights at intersections where cameras have been installed are timed so as to catch the maximum number of violators.

So it's no wonder that red-light cameras evoke mixed sentiments among the driving public. Some value them for forcing drivers to obey the law; others resent the Big Brother-ish surveillance technique that can lead to them having to pay steep fines.

And the critics have voiced concern that motorists are given no warning that they're approaching an intersection where cameras have been deployed. They point to New Jersey, which puts up signs to alert motorists when they're approaching a red-light camera-equipped intersection.

More than 60 percent of the 340 respondents in a survey on silive.com this week approved of the signs. One posted online, "Put up warning signs. This is better for the motorist & the pedestrian."

He may have a point in that the warning signs could lead to more motorists slowing down and stopping at the red light in order to avoid getting caught by the camera.

On the other hand, to us, it's kind of like requiring undercover narcotics officers to warn people of their presence before engaging in buy-and-bust operations. Why should drivers slow down and stop only at red lights at intersections with signs warning of the presence of cameras? Shouldn't these drivers be slowing and stopping at all red lights?

We understand the backlash in terms of the city using the cameras to generate fine revenue. City officials talk about public health and safety, and they're not wrong, but there can be no question that fines for all sorts of violations are viewed by Bloomberg administration officials as an added benefit of equal or greater value than safety.

However, the bottom line is that it's a serious and dangerous violation to drive through a red light. Whether it's witnessed by a police officer or captured on film by a camera, it's still against the law. And it still warrants a penalty.

If that bothers some, too bad. Some people object to speed limits and stop signs, too.